Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Maksud vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1598) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:1598]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 41/2024
Maksud S/o Shree Abdul Gani, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Nahru
Colony, Ward No. 23, Balotra, Presenty Aalniyawas, P.s. Thawla,
Dist. Nagaur,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jeth Ram S/o Thana Ram, R/o Dhudhara P.s. Luni Dist.
Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Rathore
Mr. Tej Singh Badgujar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment / Order
09/01/2025
This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the
order dated 20.6.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra
in Cr. Misc. Case No.410/2024 “Jetha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan“,
whereby the respondent accused has been granted bail in
connection with F.I.R. No.25/2024 registered at Police Station
Samdari, District Balotra for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
342, 364, 365, 367, 395, 396, 302, 201/120 B IPC and Sections
43/66 and 66C of Information Technology Act.
Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned
Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondent.
Perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:45:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1598] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-41/2024]
Hon’ble the Supreme Court, time and again in its judicial
pronouncements, has been laying down certain conditions wherein
bail granted to an accused may be cancelled. These conditions
comprise certain acts and inactions of accused such as (i) the
accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to
tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or
indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth
investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another
country, (vi) attempts to make himself scare by going
underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is not in a
position to satisfy this Court as to whether the respondent-
accused has flouted any of the above-mentioned conditions in the
instant matter.
Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court
prima facie finds that no illegality whatsoever has been committed
by the competent criminal Court while granting bail to the
accused-respondent.
In this view of the matter, there is no reason for this Court to
interfere with the said order.
Consequently, the present application for cancellation of bail
is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
133-TarunGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 09/01/2025 at 09:45:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)